get_node_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the description is not solely responsible for safety signals. The description adds value by specifying the data categories returned, but does not discuss potential side effects or error scenarios, which is acceptable given the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed status of a node') followed by a brief list of metrics. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main status categories. It does not mention possible error conditions or prerequisites, but given the annotations, this is acceptable. Slightly incomplete for agents unfamiliar with the domain, but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with the parameter 'node' already explained as 'Node name (e.g. 'pve', 'node1').' The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed status of a node' and enumerates key metrics (CPU, memory, disk, load average, kernel version). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., get_node_disks, get_node_networks) by providing a holistic status view.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cluster_status or get_node_disks. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, leaving the agent to infer context from the description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.